7.  The first applicant was born in 1970 in Lebanon. The second applicant, his wife, was born in 1971 in Kuwait. The third and the fourth applicants, who are children of the first and second applicants, were born in 1991 and 1993 respectively in Lebanon. The fifth applicant, who is also a child of the first and second applicants, was born in 2002 in Bulgaria. All of the applicants currently live in Sofia, Bulgaria.
8.  All of the applicants, except for the fifth one, who acquired Bulgarian nationality by virtue of being born on Bulgarian soil, are stateless.
9.  On an unspecified date the first, second, third and fourth applicants came to Bulgaria. On 11 September 2001 the first applicant requested asylum. On 20 September 2001 the second, third and fourth applicants also requested asylum. In two decisions of 6 November 2001 the State Refugees Agency granted refugee status to all of them. The applicants did not provide any information about the reasons underlying the Agency’s decisions.
10.  In 2002 the first and second applicants set up a limited liability company.
11.  On 10 February 2006 the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ National Security Service made an order for the first applicant’s expulsion on the ground that he represented a serious threat to national security. He also barred him from residing in Bulgaria and entering its territory for a period of ten years. The order relied on section 42 of the Aliens Act 1998 (see paragraph 36 below). No factual grounds were given. The order went on to say that the first applicant was to be detained until it could be enforced, in line with section 44(6) of the same Act (see paragraph 46 below). Lastly, it stated that it was subject to appeal before the Minister of Internal Affairs, but not subject to judicial review, as provided by section 46(2)(3) of the Act, and that it was immediately enforceable, in accordance with section 44(4)(3) of the Act (see paragraphs 37 and 39 below).
12.  The order was based on a classified proposal of 27 January 2006. The proposal, an excerpt of which was provided by the Government in the proceedings before the Court, stated that the first applicant had been subjected to surveillance in connection with information that three persons of Arab origin who had no identification documents and had contacts with representatives of Palestinian and Lebanese extremist organisations from southern Lebanon were residing in Burgas. The proposal also stated that in 2002 the first applicant had organised a drug trafficking channel from Brazil through western Europe to Bulgaria. It referred to the interception at Sofia Airport on 12 September 2002 of a shipment which originated from Sao Paulo, was addressed to the applicant, and contained 8.64 kilograms of almost one hundred per cent pure cocaine. A criminal investigation had been opened into this matter. The proposal went on to say that, having failed to complete that transaction, the first applicant had “not given up his attempts to find a quick way of making money”. There existed operative information that in 2005 he had tried to organise the shipment of 300 kilograms of cocaine from Brazil to the Netherlands. It had also been established that he was a member of an international gang engaging in the forgery of securities, frauds, and criminal banking operations. There was information that he had contacts with Bulgarian and foreign nationals residing in Bulgaria, as well as with persons from England, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Syria and Lebanon. Also, there existed operative information that on 11 September 2004 he had tried to convince several persons to kill a person residing in Germany. He also maintained regular contacts with persons abroad who were privy to his criminal activities. Lastly, there existed information that on 2 December 2005 he had telephoned the United States embassy in the Hague, making false assertions that a terrorist act had been planned against it, and had given details implicating a cousin of his, in order to frame him and thus exact revenge for the refusal of his cousin’s father to lend him money. All of those incidents showed that it was necessary to expel the first applicant in order to prevent him from carrying out activities that could imperil national security, such as the laundering of money of terrorist organisations, drug trafficking, forgery of securities and money, criminal banking operations involving large amounts, and the organisation and management of an international gang carrying out “wet jobs”. That was also necessary to prevent the establishment in Bulgaria of sleeper terrorist cells.
13.  The first applicant was presented with the order on 16 March 2006, but was apparently not given a copy of it. The same day the police searched his home and a storage facility where he was working, and detained him in a detention facility in Burgas.
14.  On an unspecified date the first applicant appealed against the expulsion order to the Minister of Internal Affairs. He also requested the suspension of the order’s enforcement. Apparently the appeal was unsuccessful.
15.  On an unspecified date the first applicant sought judicial review of the order by the Sofia City Court. He also requested the suspension of the order’s enforcement. The case was classified. On 10 May 2006 the court decided to accept the application for examination. It went on to say that it would rule on the request for suspension of the order’s enforcement after it had received a copy of the classified proposal on which it had been based.
16.  In a decision of 7 June 2006 (опр. от 7 юни 2006 г. по адм. д. № С‑61/2006 г., СГС, ІІІ „д” с‑в.) the Sofia City Court decided to suspend the order’s enforcement. The first applicant was released the same day. However, on an appeal by the National Security Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in a final decision 24 July 2006 (опр. № 8‑82 от 24 юли 2006 г. по адм. д. № ЗС‑250/2006 г., ВАС, V о.) the Supreme Administrative Court quashed that decision. It held that the courts were not entitled to suspend the enforcement of administrative decisions which were immediately enforceable by operation of law, such as the one under consideration. However, the first applicant was not re‑arrested.
17.  In the course of the proceedings the authorities submitted the excerpts of the proposal for the first applicant’s expulsion. They also submitted excerpts of other documents in support of the assertions in the proposal. The applicant was not able to present copies of any of those documents to the Court because they were classified.
18.  In view of amendments to the Aliens Act 1998 making expulsion orders subject to review by the Supreme Administrative Court (see paragraph 41 below), on an unspecified date after 10 April 2007 the Sofia City Court sent the case to the Supreme Administrative Court.
19.  On 27 February 2008 the first applicant requested the court to direct the authorities to adduce evidence in support of their allegations against him; apparently the court did not accede to his request, but gave him leave to obtain a certificate from the prosecuting authorities in relation to the existence or otherwise of criminal proceedings against him. The applicant obtained two such certificates and presented them to the court. The first one, issued by the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office, stated that the drugs shipment intercepted at Sofia Airport in 2002 (see paragraph 12 above) had been addressed to a company owned by two individuals different from the first applicant; that after that criminal proceedings had been opened against an unknown perpetrator and had been suspended because the perpetrator’s identity could not be established; and that between 2002 and 2008 that office had not opened criminal proceedings against the first applicant. The second certificate, issued by the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office, stated that between 2002 and 2008 that office had not opened criminal proceedings against the first applicant.
20.  In a memorial submitted to the Supreme Administrative Court, the first applicant argued that the expulsion order had been issued in breach of the rules of administrative procedure because he had not been informed of the proceedings or allowed to make objections or representations. Moreover, the order had been served on him without an interpreter and he had not been given a copy of it. The order was also in breach of the substantive law because it was not based on genuine evidence that he represented a national security risk. The case file contained a redacted copy of the proposal on which the order had been based, and excerpts from documents which contained allegations that the first applicant had committed various criminal offences and other breaches of the law. However, some of the allegations lacked detail, and there was no indication that he had been criminally prosecuted in relation to any of them. The certificate issued by the prosecuting authorities showed that there were no pending criminal proceedings against him, and that he had nothing to do with the drugs shipment intercepted at Sofia Airport in 2002. The documents presented by the authorities could in effect be characterised as unsupported assertions. The first applicant went on to point out that he was a refugee and to argue that his expulsion to an Arab country would put his life at risk. Lastly, he stated that he had a wife and children, and maintained that the enforcement of the expulsion order would separate him from them for a long time, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
21.  In a final judgment of 2 June 2008 (реш. № 8‑9 от 2 юни 2008 г. по адм. д. № ЗС‑162/2007 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s legal challenge to the expulsion order. It held that the order had been issued by a competent authority and in due form. There had not been any material breaches of the rules of administrative procedure. It was true that the authorities had not notified the first applicant of the proceedings against him and had not given him an opportunity to make objections and representations. However, that omission had not been material, because the first applicant had had the opportunity of putting forward his arguments against expulsion in the judicial review proceedings. The fact that the expulsion order had been served on him without an interpreter was not a problem either, because there existed evidence that he understood and spoke Bulgarian. The court went on to say that on the basis of the materials adduced in the proceedings, which had in effect not been disputed by the first applicant, it considered it established that in 2002 he had taken part in the organisation of a drug trafficking channel from Brazil through western Europe to Bulgaria, and in 2005 a drug trafficking channel from Brazil to the Netherlands; that he was an active member of an international gang engaging in the forgery of securities and financial frauds; that he maintained intensive contacts with persons in and out of the country who carried out criminal and terrorist activities; and that he had given the Embassy of the United States of America in the Hague false information that others would try to organise a terrorist act against it. In those circumstances, the authorities’ conclusion that the first applicant’s continued presence in Bulgaria would pose a threat to national security was correct. His arguments that he had not been convicted of criminal offences were irrelevant, because the measure taken against him was preventive. It was admissible to resort to such a measure if there existed enough information that he might carry out a serious offence. Moreover, there existed information that he had already committed narcotic drugs offences and that he was a member of an international criminal organisation. The arguments that the expulsion order fell foul of the Convention and the 1951 Refugee Convention because it was inadmissible to expel the first applicant to a country where his life and health might be at risk and because the expulsion would separate him from his family were likewise unavailing. The expulsion had been lawfully ordered, and the first applicant had been able to challenge it before an independent and impartial court. The expulsion order did not specify the country to which the first applicant should be removed, and the law did not require that it should spell that out. The arguments on that point were therefore irrelevant.
22.  On 31 July 2008 the head of the Migration Directorate at the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued an order for the applicant’s detention pending the enforcement of the order for his expulsion. He referred to the need to make arrangements for the first applicant’s removal to his country of origin. He went on to say that in view of the grounds for the order and the risk that its enforcement might be hindered, it was immediately enforceable. Lastly, he instructed the competent officials to make arrangements for the first applicant’s expulsion within six months, and to report on their actions.
23.  The first applicant was given a copy of the order on 1 August 2008. He refused to sign it, as was certified by two witnesses. He was arrested the same day and apparently placed in a special detention facility in Sofia.
24.  On 8 August 2008 the first applicant requested the head of the Migration Directorate not to expel him as it would expose his life to risk. He referred to section 44a of the Aliens Act 1998 (see paragraph 43 below) and to his refugee status. On 11 September 2008 the head of the Migration Directorate stated that the actions of the authorities had been lawful and that they had requested the Embassy of Lebanon to issue a travel document for the first applicant.
25.  On 8 August 2008 the first applicant also sought judicial review of the detention order and its immediate enforcement. In a decision of 21 August 2008 (опр. № 1959 от 21 август 2008 г. по адм. д. № 4919/2008 г., АССГ, І о., 6 с‑в) the Sofia City Administrative Court refused to deal with the legal challenge to the order itself, and in a decision of 22 August 2008 (опр. от 22 август 2008 г. по адм. д. № 4783/2008 г., АССГ, І адм. о., 2 с‑в) it refused to deal with the legal challenge to the order’s immediate enforcement. In both of those decisions it held that since the order was subordinate to the expulsion order and had been issued within the framework of the expulsion proceedings, it could not be regarded as an administrative decision subject to judicial review.
26.  The first applicant appealed against both decisions. In a final decision of 27 November 2008 (опр. № 12873 от 27 ноември 2008 г. по адм. д. № 12213/2008 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s decision relating to the order’s immediate enforcement, fully agreeing with its reasoning. However, in a final decision of 20 December 2008 (опр. № 14332 от 20 декември 2008 г. по адм. д. № 14165/2008 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) it quashed the lower court’s decision relating to the order itself, holding that the order was subject to judicial review, and remitted the case.
27.  On remittal, in a judgment of 27 February 2009 (реш. № 8 от 27 февруари 2009 г. по адм. д. № 4919/2008 г., АССГ, І о., 6 с‑в) the Sofia City Administrative Court examined the application on the merits, but upheld the detention order. It held that the authorities had been entitled to detain the first applicant following the order for his expulsion, and that their discretionary assessment as to whether it was necessary to detain him was not subject to judicial review. It was sufficient that they had referred to the need to make arrangements for his removal. The court went on to say that no evidence had been presented that the first applicant was a refugee or had applied for asylum.
28.  The first applicant appealed. In a final judgment of 27 November 2009 (реш. № 14330 от 27 ноември 2009 г. по адм. д. № 4856/2009 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment, fully agreeing with its reasoning.
29.  In the meantime, a parallel application by the first applicant for judicial review of the detention order was declared inadmissible by the Sofia City Administrative Court in a decision of 25 August 2008 (опр. № 1977 от 25 август 2008 г. по адм. д. № 4784/2008 г., АССГ, І. о., 16 с‑в). The first applicant’s appealed. In a final decision of 10 November 2008 (опр. № 11923 от 11 ноември 2008 г. по адм. д. № 13404/2008 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s decision, on the basis that the order was subordinate to the expulsion order, had been issued within the framework of the expulsion proceedings, and could not be regarded as an administrative decision subject to judicial review.
30.  On 28 January 2010 the Sofia City Administrative Court, acting in the exercise of its powers under the newly enacted section 46a(3) and (4) of the Aliens Act 1998 (see paragraph 51 below), reviewed the first applicant’s detention of its own motion and decided that he should be released, which the authorities did on 1 February 2010.
31.  The Migration Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs wrote to the Lebanese Embassy in Sofia with requests for it to issue a travel document allowing the first applicant to enter Lebanon on 20 August 2008, 19 December 2008, 23 January 2009 and 13 November 2009. The Lebanese Embassy did not issue such a document. It appears that the Bulgarian authorities also asked the first applicant to specify a safe third country to which he could be removed, but he did not do so.